The article lays it out from a practical standpoint: no need to carry ballistic shells. Refueling *is* re-arming.

Errr....we need a billion dollar laser to disable an inflatable boat?

I'd much rather invest the cash in the magnetic rail gun technology.

Keep in mind, this laser in being introduced under the President that referred to the "Jedi mind meld..." I'm not sure he's really up on his sci-fi.

I guess if they outfit the whole rig with a bad-ass speaker system that goes "pew pew" every time they fire it off it would be pretty cool, though...

I guess I get my car chrome plated (yeah, the whole thing...) so that when Obama's laser-weaponized drones come hunting me down they'll just bounce off...

http://rt.com/usa/invisibility-cloak-baile-zhang-566/

Will my new invisibility cloak protect me against your laser?

Lame. This laser isn't going to do anything existing weapons don't already do for far less expense. These are the kinds of wild out-of-control projects that get created when there's too much money in the government's coffers. I want my tax dollars back.

"your fuel tanks become your mags" - so much for reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Would be retarded to put on an oil-based vessel - should be mounted on nuclear carriers.

That said...how often do our navy vessels have to fend of an onslaught of....inflatable boats...<sigh..>

"pew pew"...just keep in mind the coolness of "pew pew..." Style over substance people...style over substance...

Who said the fuel has to be fossil based? Any electrical generator source owuld o, including nuclear or biodiesel or methane. Friday night fish fries power the cooking greese generatros and methane collectors connected to the onboard waste tanks power methane run gnerators after the Wednesday mexican fiestas and Monday night football chilifests.

Realistically, this could lead to a sub based weapon system for underwater firing. Subs have an issue already of elctrical staic buildup as they glide under the surface (so do the larger ships). So much so that they have these regularly replaced magnesium (I think it's magnesium) rods that decay as they discharge the excess static. Imagine being able to use that static to power a weapon that would not deal with the water resistance like a traditional projectile and didn't need to be self propelled like a torpedo and was significantly faster than said torpedo as well. Sure, torpedos are guidable but they are slow, relatively speaking, and have a limited range. The laser would be near instantaneous from a submarine combat perspective and the range could be sufficient to at least equal the torpedo.

Submarine static friction charges big as storage capacitors to shoot underwater laser which causes a huge cavitation in front of enemy vessels when you superheat their exteriors and...be fun to watch, anyway.

If you ask me, simpler is always better, especially for devices that could be damaged in combat or go long intervals without being able to service properly.

If I had to chose between a glorified cannon or laser from the future, I would chose the cannon every time.

Must keep the military-industrial complex funded or the economy will collapse...lol

Then let us go back to hand to hand combat with swirds and knives, for firearms can jam and fail much more often than a sword breaks. Or let's go back to trebuchets and other early seige engines.

You guys are forgetting a whole other way these weapons can be used. Laser platforms will make missiles obsolete. Missiles are very delicate things. Burn a little hole in them, and they blow up of their own accord.

Now, equipping the navy with said computer guided lasers means that the navy won't have to fear China's much lauded new AS-BM "Anti-ship Ballistic Missile" when operating in the South China Sea. And those "rubber boats" are pretty close to the equivalent of the fast attack boats the Iranian navy has in the Persian Gulf.

And the most important reason that I support this program is that these lasers could potentially be used against ICBM's in the boost stage. Worrying about a missile coming from North Korea? Park a laser-equipped ship off the coast and rest easy. I mean, holy crap guys this technology has the potential to make ICBM's - and thus nuclear war - obsolete.

@Draug

That's just stupid. Lasers are more complicated without any clear indication that they're better. I don't think I need to elaborate on how that's clearly different than comparing a trebuchet to an aircraft carrier.

"You guys are forgetting a whole other way these weapons can be used. Laser platforms will make missiles obsolete. Missiles are very delicate things. Burn a little hole in them, and they blow up of their own accord. "

The US already has amazing anti-missile defense systems.

The problem with the article is that it really doesn't give us *any* idea what the purpose of the laser if for. You aren't seriously going to put a billion dollar laser on a ship to protect it is *inflatable* boats.

It *might* have a wonderful, unique purpose...might even have multiple purposes...but they aren't defined. So it simply appears to be a very, very expensive unproven weapon that is most-likely a hang-over from Reagan's star wars programs that a certain branch of the military is infatuated with from a "gee, cool!" standpoint.

I can buy a whole *lot* of cannons that a *proven* and effective for the price of one unproven laser system.

Swords and knives won't keep a bomb-filled inflatable boat away from your ship...

I'm surprised at you, Draug, being swept up by this idea.

I've already gicen you several ways in which the laser is better. Refueling is rearming. Underwater lasers are faster than torpedos. Additionally, you can't jam the guidance system of a laser. It has none. You have no warning as the wrning a laser is coming would arrive at the same time the laser does. There are *very* distinct advantages. But to get there, we have to take baby steps. Lasers can't jump out of the weapon womb fully grown like Athena.

Is it the right time for weapons grade lasers everywhere? No. Is it the right time to have limited trial runs and throw a bone to the tech companies developing them? Absolutely.

Look, I'm all for technological progress. I always defend NASA and even DARPA.

But, you know what we don't really need to spend money on? Better ways to kill people from far away. The US is already wicked good at doing that. Spend that money on better armor for infantry or something actually useful. Then, when we don't have a multi trillion dollar deficit, the Navy can go back to playing Star Wars.

"Underwater lasers are faster than torpedos. "

Yeah, that will be great for fighting all those U-Boots. Oh, wait...

abge- what we have can't take down an ICBM. Not with the accuracy rates that we would need. The best thing out there is Iron Dome and its equivalent being made for medium range Scud missiles, and even those systems only have an 80% accuracy or so (I think). We simply don't have anything yet to take on a missile that goes as fast as an ICBM - and certainly don't have anything that can take out a missile headed for one of our carriers.

Yes, the tech for something like that is still a good five years to a decade away, but if we kill this project now, the wait will be even longer.

If it's an effective useful tool, let the private sector fund it until it's ready for deployment. We're 16 trillion in debt and the debt is growing by leaps and bounds. I think we're good enough at killing as is, as abge points out. I love tech and gadgets as much as the next guy...loved this idea when Reagan was touting it...

There are all sorts of "cool" weapons systems that are presumably better than what we have that we decide to not fund, because they aren't needed at the time.

I'd rather we not study body armor but study more effective close combat robots and take humans completely out of the battle.

@gold

1) I'm not sure this is entirely true; I think we already have a decent shot of taking down an ICBM

2) We already have many projects decades in the works to solve this problem. Let's finish those.

3) Last time I checked, we weren't actually in danger of a country firing an ICBM at us.

goldfinger -- who do you think is going to launch a nuclear tipped ICBM? I'm much more concerned about a terrorist with a suitcase nuke than I am an ICBM from N Korea.

krellin - we are working on robots. But since its not immediately useful should we just give up funding? Also, have you seen any economists or financial analysts concerned about the US debt? Nope. Its a problem, but not a huge one. Japan has a higher debt/GDP ratio and still holds a great bond rating.

And to be honest, I'm more worried about North Korea. They broke the armistice two weeks ago and refuse to stop doing tests. And just in general, its better to be safe than sorry.

And to answer your question abge - we do have a system in place, yes. It has about a 60% accuracy rate. More importantly, we only have less than 30 interceptor platforms - all of them on the West Coast. Personally, I'm not happy with any of those facts.

"And to be honest, I'm more worried about North Korea."

I would love to see DPRK try to launch and ICBM. It would most likely just fall on Pyongyang and solve the whole problem.

"It has about a 60% accuracy rate."

OK. 60%. So, of the 0 ICBMs coming our way... that's...let's see...0 ICBMs that get through.

"Also, have you seen any economists or financial analysts concerned about the US debt? Nope."

Are these the same economists who said that real estate never loses value, the economy is doing great and showed no signs of trouble in 2007, and that the 2008 recession was over in 2009?

Yeah, I'll definitely take their word for it *this* time.

They're fitting the laser to the U.S.S. Ponce?

U.S.S. Ponce?!?!?

I take it this is one of those hilarious moments when British English and American English mean two completely different things? Or has getting rid of "don't ask, don't tell" changed things more than I could possibly have imagined?

It's named after a city in Peurto Rico which was, in turned, named after Ponce de Leon. And considering it is the SEAL's amphibious floating base,I would be very careful poking fun at its name around its crew. You might wind up wishing you were dead.

Ah, I get it! It's the Johnny Cash effect! Boy named Sue, ship named Ponce, gives you the gravel in ya guts and the spit in ya eye sort of thing. Genious!

And bloody hilarious.